“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court

368

citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court

291

citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court

267

citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram

253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Obolombon Social Welfare Association, West Midnapore vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 129 days and 38 days, respectively. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: ITA No. 37/KOL/2025: “1. That an ex parte order was passed by the CIT(Exemption ... 38/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Obolombon Social Welfare Associationo. 1.2. Similar application has also been filed in ITA No. 38/KOL/2025. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Obolombon Social Welfare Association, West Midnapore vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Annaiyin Karangal Educational Acitivity Trust, Kancheepuram vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 833/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

notice that the appeal has been belatedly filed by ‘24’ days and explaining the delay, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. Having gone through the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, we find that it is excusable delay and therefore, we condone the delay

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

perusal of the provisions of the Act and the circular No.06/2022 issued by the CBDT dated 17.03.2022 for the subject matter of ‘Condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the income tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form 10-IC for A.Y. 2020-21, the ld.CIT(A) partially allowed ... order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CCIT-1, Chennai has already rejected the application of the assessee for condoning the delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, vide order dated 20/02/2025. Hence, ld.DR submitted that there is no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions) Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

appeal. Considering the issue of substantial delay in filing the appeal, the parties at the very outset were heard on the issue of condonation of delay. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant material evidence brought on record duly considered ... that we have to examine is whether the assessee has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. Section 253 of the Act provides right to appeal both to the assessee as well as the AO against certain orders which are appealable before the Tribunal as per the said

Deepak Gopinath Birje, Goregaon East vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 5796/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Deepak Gopinathbirje Commissioner Of Income Tax A/604, Lakshachandi Heights, Off. Gen. Vs Nfac, Delhi A.K. Vaidya Marg, Gokuldham, Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Ahcpk6464F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 270A

appeal: ”1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT Appeal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 255 days on ground of there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, without application of the mind and without proper reason ... days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The assessee could not file any time due to ill advice of his earlier consultant and the assessee has not aware about the consequence

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 688 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “The said order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed without consideration

Satyendra Kumar, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhidham

ITA 909/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.909/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., Ito Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeapk7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

therefore appeal is barred by limitation. (i) The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit, the relevant part of the application of condonation of delay is reproduced: 1). The appellant is an individual and engaged ... said delay is not due to any ill motive and intentional. 5). In view of this, we kindly request your honours to condone the delay, admit appeal and decide the same on merits.” Satyendrakumar vs. The I.T. Officer ward-1 The Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that delay

Bhawani Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: Brief Facts:The assessee has acted as an RTO (Road Transport Office) agent during the year under consideration and earns commission income which ... receiving of order. However now the appeal is being filed on 24.03.2025 i.e. with the delay of 448Days and therefore this prayer for condonation of delay is being made. The grounds for the prayer are as follows: Our Submission: 1.1 Reason for delay in filing of appeal: In this case

Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ajmer

ITA 429/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 429 to 431/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19 | Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib | | Taragarh Hill Ajmer, | Ajmer. | बनाम Income Tax Office, | Vs. | Ward-1(1), | Ajmer. | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAAAD5184H अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv., Shri Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

period of limitation. 6. Today, Learned AR for the applicant has submitted fresh three separate applications, one in respect of each appeal, seeking condonation of delay, supported by fresh affidavits of the Secretary of the applicant. 7. While referring to the reasons given in the applications ... applicant is a “Dargah” and its Secretary- authorized representative did not diligently pursue the matters, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. It is ordered accordingly. On merits 11. On going through the record, it transpires that the assessee remained non compliant

Husain Ahamed, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, Pratapgarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 420/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

dated 29.03.2022 by ITO, Ward- Pratapgarh. 2. There is a delay of 322 days in filing of this appeal application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is filed. We 2 Husain Ahamed vs. ITO have heard both sides. On going through the contents of the application for condonation ... that reasonable cause prevented the assessee for filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice and taking liberal we approach hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order passed

Keezhkulam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited No 3938, Kanyakumari vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 884/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.G. Reddi Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Teknoture Info Services Private Limited, Coibatore vs. DCIT Corp Circle I, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 747/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

There is a delay of 468 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for late filing of this ... appeal before the Tribunal. I also find that the assessee has got a prima facie case on merits. For all these reasons, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee

M/S. Ooruni Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 688/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Prince Simon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Therefore, according to the Ld.CIT(E), approval u/s.80G of the Act can’t be granted, because he doesn’t have the power to condone the delay. 3. Pursuant to rejection of its application, the assessee is noted to have filed condonation petition before the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT ... been placed before us, which shows that assessee through its Legal Counsel has filed application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning the delay of ‘32’ days in filing of the application seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act. A copy of the application filed before the CBDT is reproduced

Sri Akshiya Shiradi Saibaba Trust, Pondcherry vs. ITO, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate for Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

reiterated that there was no mistake apparent on record and prayed for dropping the proposed 154 proceedings; and simultaneously filed petition for condonation of delay u/s.119(2) of the Act before the Ld.CIT(E), Chennai dated 26.10.2024 [a copy of which has been reproduced by the Ld.CIT ... Page No.4]. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that since the assessee has requested for condonation of delay of five (5) days in uploading Form 10B, he was of Sri Akshiya Shiradi Saibaba Trust :: 5 :: the view that assessee has misled

Rasipuram Vivekananda Educational Trust, Rasipuram vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1071/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. Lakshmi -For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 251

assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of ‘48’ days in filing of the appeals and filed application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit. A perusal of the contents of it, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore ... condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeals on its merits. 3. The Ld.AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the common issue involved in both the appeals is disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rasipuram Vivekananda Educational Trust, Namakkal vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1070/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of ‘48’ days in filing of the appeal and filed application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit. A perusal of the contents of it, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore ... condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. 3. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the assessee Trust is registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) and filed its Return of Income (RoI) claiming exemption u/s.12

Rasipuram Vivekananda Educational Trust, Namakkal vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1069/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. Lakshmi –For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 251

Lnv Technology Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1032/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. G. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 250

filed condonation application along with affidavit to support the averments made therein. Having perused the contents of the application filed for condonation of delay and the affidavit, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay and therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal

Manoj Madhukar Gajarlawar, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Sonthlia, AdvocateFor Respondent: DR is on leave

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

competent authority u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act; and accordingly, he was of the view that if the assessee receives condonation of delay in filing Form 67 from the competent authority, then the AO to grant the Foreign Tax remitted in Thailand. Still not satisfied with the action